There’s no telling how well secretive L.A. ethics commission does its job: Ruth Galanter

In 1989, Mayor Tom Bradley served as the only (out of 46) paid member of the advisory board of Far East Bank, according to the L.A. Times. The same article reported the deposit of $2 million of city funds in that bank after conversations between Mayor Bradley and the bank’s president. Oops.

No fool he, Mayor Bradley promptly appointed a Blue Ribbon Committee on Ethics. The Blue Ribbon Committee proposed creating a City Ethics Commission to do what the California Fair Political Practices Commission already does: monitor contributions to the campaigns of candidates for city elective offices.

Creating such a commission required amending the City Charter, which requires a vote of the people.

Fast forward to 2013.

Test case: In April, following newspaper disclosures of City Controller Wendy Greuel’s campaign emails produced on city computers during her run for mayor, I filed a complaint with the City Ethics Commission. Hearing nothing in response, in August I wrote to inquire how the commission disposed of the complaint. Did they take any action? Did they even investigate? Or did they blow it off? Hearing nothing in response to that either, I complained to Mayor Garcetti’s office, which produced a phone call from the commission’s chief prosecutor.

Did they take any action, I asked. Can’t tell you that, he responded. Did they investigate? Can’t tell you that either. Listen, he said, we are precluded by law from responding at all. If we eventually prosecute, you will read about it in the news. Otherwise you will not hear from us, not even a thank-you for writing.

Could you not at least acknowledge receiving the complaint? No. Can you tell me how many investigations you conduct in a year and their disposition, even without discussing specific cases. No. Do you share that information with the people who have to approve your budget? We are precluded by law, etc.

How then, I wonder, does the Ethics Commission make up its proposed budget? How do the mayor and council, who have to approve that budget, let alone we taxpayers, figure out if we are getting our money’s worth?

In the last fiscal year, taxpayers forked nearly $2.3 million to support the Ethics Commission staff of 19, plus hearing officers and special prosecutors “as needed.” Under the charter, the city must cough up as much as $250,000 each time a special prosecutor is appointed. That’s as much transparency as you’re going to see.

Advertisement

Since there was never a news story indicating a prosecution, it appears the Ethics Commission never did anything about Tom Bradley’s conflict of interest. It was also not bothered by the incontrovertible evidence of Wendy Greuel’s widely circulated campaign emails generated on city computers. It is powerless to address allegations of violations of state and city laws concerning sexual harassment by elected officials. Those do not, apparently, fall under the category of “ethics,” or at least within the commission’s mandate.

Even when the commission proposes new regulations, such as regarding allowable gifts, the very officials who would be regulated are the ones who decide whether to adopt them.

Are we getting our money’s worth? Are government officials more ethical than they used to be? If no one can demonstrate that we are, why do we keep it around?

Alas, the only way to eliminate this commission is another charter amendment. Since most elected officials are firmly committed to showing you they support “ethics,” that amendment will never appear on a ballot.

Funding for the commission, however, comes before the mayor and council every year. If the Ethics Commission can’t prove that it is making government officials and their campaigns more honest and open, why fund it?

Ruth Galanter is a former member and president of the Los Angeles City Council, on which she served for 16 years.